130
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Decision panels/SOAS/Report (view source)
Revision as of 21:25, 8 October 2009
, 21:25, 8 October 2009separate page
<center>'''''This is a draft, and not a final report.'''''</center>
===Introduction===
This constitutes the report of the SoaS decision panel (DP), [http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2009-September/008746.html convened by SLOB].
The structure of this report is:
# Introduction (this section)
# Executive Summary
# Mandate
# Members
# Report on Questions 1-3
# Conclusion
# Appendices
===Executive Summary===
The Decision Panel was [[#Mandate|mandated]] to answer three questions. The Decision Panel's answers are below:
;Question 1: "Should Sugar Labs be a GNU/Linux distributor, rather than just an upstream producing Sugar releases?"
;Answer: [[#Question_1|TBD - see below for opinions]]
;Question 2: "Should SL be neutral about distributions containing Sugar, and refuse to endorse one over another?"
;Answer: [[#Question_2|TBD - see below for opinions]]
;Question 3: "Should 'Sugar on a Stick' be a phrase that SL asks its community to avoid using unless they refer to the SoaS-Fedora distribution?"
;Answer: [[#Question_3|TBD - see below for opinions]]
In addition, [[#Mandate|the mandate]] allows the Decision Panel to raise and answer any other question the DP deems required to provide an answer to the original question: "Is the current SoaS going to be the primary way Sugar Labs distributes a Sugar-centric GNU/Linux distribution?" (Question 0).
The Decision Panel has not raised any additional questions, outside of requesting clarification of terms in questions 2 and 3.
===Mandate===
{{quote|
:"Investigate the situation of how SoaS should be treated by Sugar Labs, and related questions, including answers to the following:
:* "Should Sugar Labs be a GNU/Linux distributor, rather than just an upstream producing Sugar releases?"
:* "Should SL be neutral about distributions containing Sugar, and refuse to endorse one over another?"
:* "Should 'Sugar on a Stick' be a phrase that SL asks its community to avoid using unless they refer to the SoaS-Fedora distribution?"
:* Any other question the Decision Panel deems required to provide an answer to the original question:"Is the current SoaS going to be the primary way Sugar Labs distributes a Sugar-centric GNU/Linux distribution?"
}}
===Members===
* Sebastian Dziallas
* Luke Faraone
* Martin Dengler
* Bill Bogstad
* Faisal Khan
* Benjamin M. Schwartz
* Samuel Klein
* Sean Daly
* Tabitha Roder
* Caryl Bigenho
* Daniel Drake
* Abhishek Indoria
===Report on Questions 1-3===
==== Q1: OS distributor v. upstream ====
Question 1: "Should Sugar Labs be a GNU/Linux distributor, rather than just an upstream producing Sugar releases?"
'''Proposed answers:'''
{| border="1" class="wikitable" style="border-collapse:collapse;"
!width=25%| Yes
!width=25%| No
!width=25%| Invalid
! Undecided
|-
|
# Yes. Without it Sugar Labs has nothing to encourage the use of or promote that is of direct use to anyone other then programmers or the people who assemble Linux distributions. [http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/soas/2009-September/000029.html (reference)] [http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/soas/2009-September/000032.html counterpoint]. There is real interest and are real plans to do this [http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/soas/2009-October/000100.html (reference)].
# Yes. We greatly appreciate the work of those who have contributed to SoaS Strawberry and Blueberry. We regard these products as valuable, critical distribution mechanism for Sugar, and we will do what we can to ensure their continued development. [http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2009-September/008681.html (reference)]
|
# No, not now. SL is not now a full-service GNU/Linux distributor and being one is not in SL's [[Sugar Labs#Mission|mission statment]]; "[[What_is_Sugar%3F|Sugar learning platform]]" is *not* a GNU/Linux distribution. [http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/soas/2009-September/000056.html counterpoint] [http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/soas/2009-September/000057.html counter-counterpoint]. However many contributors volunteer to help with individual tasks thereof; and an official plan is part of a number of SugarLabs' members published plans. Sugar Labs is better off spending its scarce resources on the [[What_is_Sugar%3F|Sugar learning platform]]. Distribution work is is really hard and labour-intensive and being done by major distro vendors already (Debian, Fedora [http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/soas/2009-October/000168.html (reference)]
|
# Invalid question. An answer to this question is not needed for Sugar Labs' members to get on with their work, and the results from a decision panel will not have any effect [http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2009-September/008751.html ref].
|
# Undecided. The two sides of the argument don't seem to be speaking directly to one anothers' issue [http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/soas/2009-October/000175.html (reference)] [http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/soas/2009-October/000178.html counterpoint]
|}
==== Q2: distro endorsement v. neutrality ====
Question 2: "Should SL be neutral about distributions containing Sugar, and refuse to endorse one over another?"
'''Proposed answers:'''
{| border="1"
!width=25%| Yes
!width=25%| No
!width=25%| Invalid
! Undecided
|-
|
# Yes.
|
# No. Sugar On a Stick, the Fedora-derived distribution, will be the endorsed distribution. SL needs to influence the distribution so drastically that it is effectively controlling it [http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/soas/2009-October/000125.html (reference)] [http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/soas/2009-October/000128.html counterpoint]
|
# Invalid question. An answer to this question is not needed for Sugar Labs' members to get on with their work, and the results from a decision panel will not have any effect [http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2009-September/008751.html ref].
|
# Undecided: what do "neutral" and "endorse" mean? We need to be more clear about these definitions in order to answer [http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/soas/2009-October/000169.html (reference)]
|}
==== Q3: SoaS name ====
Question 3: "Should 'Sugar on a Stick' be a phrase that SL asks its community to avoid using unless they refer to the SoaS-Fedora distribution?"
'''Proposed answers:'''
{| border="1"
!width=25%| Yes
!width=25%| No
!width=25%| Invalid
! Undecided
|-
|
# Yes. Sugar on a Stick is the central pillar of our marketing strategy [http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/soas/2009-September/000048.html (reference)]. It's not trademarked, but should be [http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/soas/2009-September/000045.html (reference)]. SL does not want to confuse its users and a light touch like this is all that's needed [http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2009-September/008403.html (reference)]
|
# No.
|
# Invalid question. An answer to this question is not needed for Sugar Labs' members to get on with their work, and the results from a decision panel will not have any effect [http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2009-September/008751.html ref].
|
# Undecided. While it's reasonable for SL as a community to have a "don't be confusing" policy that applies equally to all of its projects, that has nothing to do with trademark per se. [http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/soas/2009-October/000175.html (reference)]
|}
===Conclusion===
''to come''
===Appendices===
====Votes / Recorded opinions====
=====Question 1=====
{| border="1"
|+ Question 1: "Should Sugar Labs be a GNU/Linux distributor, rather than just an upstream producing
Sugar releases?"
! Yes
! No
! Defer
! Invalid
! Undecided/Abstain
|-
|
# [http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/soas/2009-October/000100.html Sean Daly]
# [http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/soas/2009-September/000029.html Bill Bogstead]
# [http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/soas/2009-October/000149.html Abhishek Indoria]
# Luke Faraone
|
# [http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/soas/2009-September/000028.html Martin Dengler]
# Tabitha Roder
# Caryl Bigenho
|
|
|
# Sebastian Dziallas
# Faisal Khan
# Benjamin M. Schwartz
# Samuel Klein
# Daniel Drake
|}
=====Question 2=====
{| border="1"
|+ Question 2: "Should SL be neutral about distributions containing Sugar, and refuse to endorse one over another?"
! For
! Against
! Defer
! Invalid
! Undecided/Abstain
|-
|
# [http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/soas/2009-September/000028.html Martin Dengler]
# Tabitha Roder
# Caryl Bigenho
# Luke Faraone
|
# [http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/soas/2009-October/000149.html Abhishek Indoria]
|
|
# Sebastian Dziallas
# Martin Dengler
# Bill Bogstad
# Faisal Khan
# Benjamin M. Schwartz
# Samuel Klein
# Daniel Drake
|}
=====Question 3=====
{| border="1"
|+ Question 3: "Should 'Sugar on a Stick' be a phrase that SL asks its community to avoid using unless they refer to the SoaS-Fedora distribution?"
! For
! Against
! Defer
! Invalid
! Undecided/Abstain
|-
|
# [http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/soas/2009-September/000045.html Sean Daly]
# [http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/soas/2009-October/000149.html Abhishek Indoria]
# Tabitha Roder
# Luke Faraone
|
# [http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/soas/2009-September/000028.html Martin Dengler]
# Caryl Bigenho
|
|
|
# Bill Bogstad
# Sebastian Dziallas
# Faisal Khan
# Benjamin M. Schwartz
# Samuel Klein
# Daniel Drake
|}
===Introduction===
This constitutes the report of the SoaS decision panel (DP), [http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2009-September/008746.html convened by SLOB].
The structure of this report is:
# Introduction (this section)
# Executive Summary
# Mandate
# Members
# Report on Questions 1-3
# Conclusion
# Appendices
===Executive Summary===
The Decision Panel was [[#Mandate|mandated]] to answer three questions. The Decision Panel's answers are below:
;Question 1: "Should Sugar Labs be a GNU/Linux distributor, rather than just an upstream producing Sugar releases?"
;Answer: [[#Question_1|TBD - see below for opinions]]
;Question 2: "Should SL be neutral about distributions containing Sugar, and refuse to endorse one over another?"
;Answer: [[#Question_2|TBD - see below for opinions]]
;Question 3: "Should 'Sugar on a Stick' be a phrase that SL asks its community to avoid using unless they refer to the SoaS-Fedora distribution?"
;Answer: [[#Question_3|TBD - see below for opinions]]
In addition, [[#Mandate|the mandate]] allows the Decision Panel to raise and answer any other question the DP deems required to provide an answer to the original question: "Is the current SoaS going to be the primary way Sugar Labs distributes a Sugar-centric GNU/Linux distribution?" (Question 0).
The Decision Panel has not raised any additional questions, outside of requesting clarification of terms in questions 2 and 3.
===Mandate===
{{quote|
:"Investigate the situation of how SoaS should be treated by Sugar Labs, and related questions, including answers to the following:
:* "Should Sugar Labs be a GNU/Linux distributor, rather than just an upstream producing Sugar releases?"
:* "Should SL be neutral about distributions containing Sugar, and refuse to endorse one over another?"
:* "Should 'Sugar on a Stick' be a phrase that SL asks its community to avoid using unless they refer to the SoaS-Fedora distribution?"
:* Any other question the Decision Panel deems required to provide an answer to the original question:"Is the current SoaS going to be the primary way Sugar Labs distributes a Sugar-centric GNU/Linux distribution?"
}}
===Members===
* Sebastian Dziallas
* Luke Faraone
* Martin Dengler
* Bill Bogstad
* Faisal Khan
* Benjamin M. Schwartz
* Samuel Klein
* Sean Daly
* Tabitha Roder
* Caryl Bigenho
* Daniel Drake
* Abhishek Indoria
===Report on Questions 1-3===
==== Q1: OS distributor v. upstream ====
Question 1: "Should Sugar Labs be a GNU/Linux distributor, rather than just an upstream producing Sugar releases?"
'''Proposed answers:'''
{| border="1" class="wikitable" style="border-collapse:collapse;"
!width=25%| Yes
!width=25%| No
!width=25%| Invalid
! Undecided
|-
|
# Yes. Without it Sugar Labs has nothing to encourage the use of or promote that is of direct use to anyone other then programmers or the people who assemble Linux distributions. [http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/soas/2009-September/000029.html (reference)] [http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/soas/2009-September/000032.html counterpoint]. There is real interest and are real plans to do this [http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/soas/2009-October/000100.html (reference)].
# Yes. We greatly appreciate the work of those who have contributed to SoaS Strawberry and Blueberry. We regard these products as valuable, critical distribution mechanism for Sugar, and we will do what we can to ensure their continued development. [http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2009-September/008681.html (reference)]
|
# No, not now. SL is not now a full-service GNU/Linux distributor and being one is not in SL's [[Sugar Labs#Mission|mission statment]]; "[[What_is_Sugar%3F|Sugar learning platform]]" is *not* a GNU/Linux distribution. [http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/soas/2009-September/000056.html counterpoint] [http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/soas/2009-September/000057.html counter-counterpoint]. However many contributors volunteer to help with individual tasks thereof; and an official plan is part of a number of SugarLabs' members published plans. Sugar Labs is better off spending its scarce resources on the [[What_is_Sugar%3F|Sugar learning platform]]. Distribution work is is really hard and labour-intensive and being done by major distro vendors already (Debian, Fedora [http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/soas/2009-October/000168.html (reference)]
|
# Invalid question. An answer to this question is not needed for Sugar Labs' members to get on with their work, and the results from a decision panel will not have any effect [http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2009-September/008751.html ref].
|
# Undecided. The two sides of the argument don't seem to be speaking directly to one anothers' issue [http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/soas/2009-October/000175.html (reference)] [http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/soas/2009-October/000178.html counterpoint]
|}
==== Q2: distro endorsement v. neutrality ====
Question 2: "Should SL be neutral about distributions containing Sugar, and refuse to endorse one over another?"
'''Proposed answers:'''
{| border="1"
!width=25%| Yes
!width=25%| No
!width=25%| Invalid
! Undecided
|-
|
# Yes.
|
# No. Sugar On a Stick, the Fedora-derived distribution, will be the endorsed distribution. SL needs to influence the distribution so drastically that it is effectively controlling it [http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/soas/2009-October/000125.html (reference)] [http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/soas/2009-October/000128.html counterpoint]
|
# Invalid question. An answer to this question is not needed for Sugar Labs' members to get on with their work, and the results from a decision panel will not have any effect [http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2009-September/008751.html ref].
|
# Undecided: what do "neutral" and "endorse" mean? We need to be more clear about these definitions in order to answer [http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/soas/2009-October/000169.html (reference)]
|}
==== Q3: SoaS name ====
Question 3: "Should 'Sugar on a Stick' be a phrase that SL asks its community to avoid using unless they refer to the SoaS-Fedora distribution?"
'''Proposed answers:'''
{| border="1"
!width=25%| Yes
!width=25%| No
!width=25%| Invalid
! Undecided
|-
|
# Yes. Sugar on a Stick is the central pillar of our marketing strategy [http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/soas/2009-September/000048.html (reference)]. It's not trademarked, but should be [http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/soas/2009-September/000045.html (reference)]. SL does not want to confuse its users and a light touch like this is all that's needed [http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2009-September/008403.html (reference)]
|
# No.
|
# Invalid question. An answer to this question is not needed for Sugar Labs' members to get on with their work, and the results from a decision panel will not have any effect [http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2009-September/008751.html ref].
|
# Undecided. While it's reasonable for SL as a community to have a "don't be confusing" policy that applies equally to all of its projects, that has nothing to do with trademark per se. [http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/soas/2009-October/000175.html (reference)]
|}
===Conclusion===
''to come''
===Appendices===
====Votes / Recorded opinions====
=====Question 1=====
{| border="1"
|+ Question 1: "Should Sugar Labs be a GNU/Linux distributor, rather than just an upstream producing
Sugar releases?"
! Yes
! No
! Defer
! Invalid
! Undecided/Abstain
|-
|
# [http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/soas/2009-October/000100.html Sean Daly]
# [http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/soas/2009-September/000029.html Bill Bogstead]
# [http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/soas/2009-October/000149.html Abhishek Indoria]
# Luke Faraone
|
# [http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/soas/2009-September/000028.html Martin Dengler]
# Tabitha Roder
# Caryl Bigenho
|
|
|
# Sebastian Dziallas
# Faisal Khan
# Benjamin M. Schwartz
# Samuel Klein
# Daniel Drake
|}
=====Question 2=====
{| border="1"
|+ Question 2: "Should SL be neutral about distributions containing Sugar, and refuse to endorse one over another?"
! For
! Against
! Defer
! Invalid
! Undecided/Abstain
|-
|
# [http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/soas/2009-September/000028.html Martin Dengler]
# Tabitha Roder
# Caryl Bigenho
# Luke Faraone
|
# [http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/soas/2009-October/000149.html Abhishek Indoria]
|
|
# Sebastian Dziallas
# Martin Dengler
# Bill Bogstad
# Faisal Khan
# Benjamin M. Schwartz
# Samuel Klein
# Daniel Drake
|}
=====Question 3=====
{| border="1"
|+ Question 3: "Should 'Sugar on a Stick' be a phrase that SL asks its community to avoid using unless they refer to the SoaS-Fedora distribution?"
! For
! Against
! Defer
! Invalid
! Undecided/Abstain
|-
|
# [http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/soas/2009-September/000045.html Sean Daly]
# [http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/soas/2009-October/000149.html Abhishek Indoria]
# Tabitha Roder
# Luke Faraone
|
# [http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/soas/2009-September/000028.html Martin Dengler]
# Caryl Bigenho
|
|
|
# Bill Bogstad
# Sebastian Dziallas
# Faisal Khan
# Benjamin M. Schwartz
# Samuel Klein
# Daniel Drake
|}